Thought exercises: "God" exists...

@tea said
It was a specific question (thought experiment) and I tried to give a specific answer.

Why? Why do Hindus assume that they will be reincarnated after this life?

Because someone they trust told them.

Thought exercise #1
Why would we assume it is a "good" God?

Because someone we trust told us.

OK, I see what you mean.

@tea said
It was a specific question (thought experiment) and I tried to give a specific answer.

Why? Why do Hindus assume that they will be reincarnated after this life?
Because someone they trust told them.
Thought exercise #1
Why would we assume it is a "good" God?
Because someone we trust told us.

”Because someone we trust told us.”

In a current thread I have spent about 4 pages of exchanges trying to get kellyjay to acknowledge this salient point you are making; thank you for your unequivocal forthrightness.

@tea said
Well right. No. No we don't.

It's not helpful to bandy about the verb "to know" when we are talking philosophically about things we simply perceive [and assume] based on our faith/lack of faith. Just a thought.

@tea said
Thought exercise #1
Why would we assume it is a "good" God?

Because someone we trust told us.

So allow me to summarize: people who assume the creator entity is "good" do so because of hearsay and/or because of something akin to rote learning [with the help of "someone"], is that the long and short of it? Care to dig a little deeper?

@fmf said
It's not helpful to bandy about the verb "to know" when we are talking philosophically about things we simply perceive [and assume] based on our faith/lack of faith. Just a thought.

We can quickly move on past the meta - talking about talking and defining the rules of engagement.

To a Christian, knowledge of the existence of God the creator feels exactly the same as knowledge of gravity.

Yes you can say one is faith and one is science. Blah blah blah. They feel exactly the same. So we can be generous with each other and not have to use the exact perfect words as we try to communicate concepts that go way beyond human language.

Gravity does not require your understanding or belief to exist. Neither does God.

@fmf said
So allow me to summarize: people who assume the creator entity is "good" do so because of hearsay and/or because of something akin to rote learning [with the help of "someone"], is that the long and short of it? Care to dig a little deeper?

Yes. No.

@tea said
Yes you can say one is faith and one is science. Blah blah blah. They feel exactly the same. So we can be generous with each other and not have to use the exact perfect words as we try to communicate concepts that go way beyond human language.

Pointing out that using the word "know" [in these circumstances] is misleading, despite your feelings, certainly isn't an example of being not "generous". If you are "trying to communicate concepts" then the correct meaning of words is crucial.

@tea said
Gravity does not require your understanding or belief to exist. Neither does God.

The existence of gravity is not something we apply faith or speculation or superstition or aspiration to, so we can say objectively that we know it exists.

We can certainly say we believe supernatural beings exist [or don't], but no matter how intense that belief [or disbelief] is, to assert that we "know" it does is simply using the word in a kind performative and propagandizing way.

@tea said
To a Christian, knowledge of the existence of God the creator feels exactly the same as knowledge of gravity.

How do you know this?

@divegeester said
How do you know this?

It's an in interesting assertion to make in defence of believers' mangling of language when, as far as I can make out, @tea is a non-believer.